At what point during the Bush Administration did any elected official proclaim that getting rid of Bush was more important than governing effectively during his tenure?

Except that's not what McConnell said. And you know it.

He never contrasted getting rid of Obama with governing effectively. He actually qualified the statement to say that "if [Obama is] willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Also, you and Berger like to leave out the fact that the statement was made almost two years after Obama was elected. The Obama presidency was already in the midst of failure, and the mid-terms were approaching. Obama himself lied on 60 minutes, saying McConnell had made the comment "when I first came into office."

That wasn't a response to my question. Did any of those pushing for impeachment ever proclaim that the impeachment effort was more important than governance? Or even that it was the "most important" thing to do, or "top priority" or anything similar?Edited by tonton - 1/22/13 at 9:29pm

At what point during the Bush Administration did any elected official proclaim that getting rid of Bush was more important than governing effectively during his tenure?

Except that's not what McConnell said. And you know it.

He never contrasted getting rid of Obama with governing effectively. He actually qualified the statement to say that "if [Obama is] willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Also, you and Berger like to leave out the fact that the statement was made almost two years after Obama was elected. The Obama presidency was already in the midst of failure, and the mid-terms were approaching. Obama himself lied on 60 minutes, saying McConnell had made the comment "when I first came into office."

It IS exactly what McConnell said, actually. His later clarification doesn't counter his prior statement. He said, and never refuted, that opposing Obama was the most important priority. You cannot deny that.

You mean his very next sentence? Do you even know where the statement was made?

It wasn't his very next sentence (without context). He was asked a question to clarify. And his clarification didn't refute his earlier statement that stated empirically that [their] number one priority was to prevent Obama's re-election. You can still have room for compromise without changing that fact.

Did any of those pushing for impeachment ever proclaim that the impeachment effort was more important than governance?

Impeachment is an act of governance.

Yes!

Quote:

As is earnestly seeking to (democratically) end the term of an opposing political party when you are the opposition .

Agreed. Let me rephrase. When did any elected official ever proclaim that Bush's impeachment effort was more important than other acts of governance?

Quote:

The simple fact is that Team Obama realized that they couldn't run on their record, so they sought to demonize their opponents.

Non-sequitur, and untrue. I'd love to see a calculation of the number of times the Democrats criticized the Republicans and vice-versa during the campaign. Are you claiming the Democrats were more negative? Seriously?

Another two non-sequiturs. And please be honest. it would be absolutely impossible to produce a budget when you know the opposition is going to obstruct each and every honest effort. It would have been a waste of time, and you know it.

And please be honest. it would be absolutely impossible to produce a budget when you know the opposition is going to obstruct each and every honest effort. It would have been a waste of time, and you know it.

Yes, it's not like the Democrats had a majority in the Senate or anything.

It is truly inexcusable to pretend they could not have passed a budget if they had wanted to.

And please be honest. it would be absolutely impossible to produce a budget when you know the opposition is going to obstruct each and every honest effort. It would have been a waste of time, and you know it.

Yes, it's not like the Democrats had a majority in the Senate or anything.

It is truly inexcusable to pretend they could not have passed a budget if they had wanted to.

Yeah, it's not like the House has anything to do with the budget process. And it's not like the Republicans in the Senate haven't staged more filibusters during Obama's term than in all other presidencies combined. Obama's budget process was surely a walk in the park!

I want liberal policies to fail. I want him to fail in trying to put in place a health care plan that takes away the private sector from health care. I want him to fail in this cap and trade program as long as China and Brazil and Indonesia are not going to play in it. But I want him to succeed as a president, meaning, I want him to succeed in strengthening our economy, keeping us free, bringing our troops home in success from Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't want his liberal policies to succeed.

So, he wants those policies to hurt Americans.

He could have said "failed to be passed" or something like that. But he didn't.

Succeed as president would mean that he wants his policies to help Americans.

But then he says he doesn't want the policies to help Americans.

Any Democrats say something like this? They might say that they believe the policies will hurt the country, but they would not WANT those policies to hurt the country. I'd like to be corrected.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Before Obama even became president, the GOP had a senior member pledge that his most important task was to make sure that Obama would only serve one term. He didn't say serve the people or protect the Constitution. He said limit the duly elected POTUS.

The lack of compromise started back then, and it wasn't O who done it.

I read up on this and admit I had it wrong about Mitch's comment; it was later and not quite as hideous as I had expected from Mitch. The lack of compromise, on the other hand, that started early.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Yeah, it's not like the House has anything to do with the budget process. And it's not like the Republicans in the Senate haven't staged more filibusters during Obama's term than in all other presidencies combined. Obama's budget process was surely a walk in the park!

You're kidding me, right? You're claiming that interference from the House prevented the Senate from passing a budget?

Do you even understand how Congress works? Both houses pass different version of bills all the time. The system is set up to work that way.

Nobody claimed it was "a walk in the park". I claimed the Senate hasn't done it's budgetary duties under the constitution for years.

Filibusters may slow things down considerably, but they don't prevent the majority party from presenting a budget.

Why don't you simply admit that the Democrats are trying to hide the reckless spending that has occurred under their watch?

Because we all know that's really why no budget was presented for years.